When I saw that map on Think Progress I thought it was hilarious and I thought of you. A picture says a thousand words.

And they just don't get it. They can look at the same map and it would never even occur to them.

Maybe we can't have both open borders and income equality. Maybe they have to pick and choose. Maybe life is about trade offs, and you can have one or the other. In their world, they get to have all of that, and their cake and eat it too. They just can't see what I see when I look at that map.

Here are U.S states by Gino-coefficient of inequality and Non-Hispanic White share. The Whiter, the more equal (correlation -0.51).

After a century of fierce struggle, Liberals have finally defeated Conservatives. They did not do this by winning the war of ideas, but by cheating and transforming the electorate.

It is their country now. I take some solace in the fact that the strategy that enabled liberal political victory made liberal policy aims impossible. They dreamt of Sweden, but are going to get Brazil.

We are raised to not be envious of those richer than ourselves, but being envious of those poorer than oneself is a difficult concept to appreciate. It was present in the old-WASP elite with their noblesse oblige and the attitude that "but for the grace of God (and good breeding) one could be in their servant's shoes."

However, today's self-indulgent and self-deluded "meritocracy" has no sense of noblesse oblige. Especially among the career politician and liberal DC bureaucrat, their oblige is taking two 6 figure salaries with gold-bricked benefits packages while telling everyone else what's best for them. But as the Gini coefficients make clear, it really comes down to envy by the upper-class towards their blue-collar co-ethnics. The upper-class wants their cake (inflated salaries) and to eat it too (relative spending power over their co-ethnics). There is no better way to stick to the labor class than to flood the market with labor.

Resembles nothing less than a map of Italian incoe inequality, with the southern portion of the USA (including the formerly equitable south-west), standing in for the Mezzogiorno. At least the italians have got a few hundred years of rapacious landlords, malaria and bone-headed catholicism to blame, what's America's excuse?

It's a map of the the states with the highest influx of Hispanic immigrants (legal or illegal), me thinks. Added to the Southwest are states NY, IL, FL, GA, et al. Seems incontrovertable. I must be missing something...

Notice how the Left worries more about inequality than poverty these days. The problem, of course, is that the best cure for poverty is a strong economy (any look at poverty rates over time shows this to be an indisputable fact). But a strong economy increases inequality, since the rich get richer faster than the poor and middle class do. So any policy which might promote a strong economy and in consequence fight poverty is now a BAD POLICY because the real evil, it turns out, is inequality not poverty.

Joe #1 and #2 grow up together in the same neighborhood, go to the same schools growing up.

Joe #1 works his ass off in high school, gets into a top 10 university. While there, he works hard in classes, and works a PT job to help cover his tuition. He gets into a good MBA program, gets out, and by the time he is 30, is earning 120K at a 60hr/week job for a solid company. Joe #1 pays tens of thousands of dollars in taxes each year, as one would assume.

Joe #2 screws around during HS, does a stint in juvie for a drug charge. The probation program after he gets out offers him a GED program, but he doesn't end up getting one, because he spends his time screwing around with his slacker friends. By the time we catch up to him at 30, he's been in and out of jail a couple of more times for minor charges, and has bounced from dead end job to dead end job. He has been offered opportunity after opportunity to turn his life around, his parents try sending him to a private school, even try giving him a tutor, but he never puts in the effort. He spends his paycheck on weed, beer, and his car. Joe #2 has never paid taxes because he always ends up at least getting it all back.

Paleoconservative view: So what if Joe #1 and Joe #2 make a different salary? They both earn what their talents and effort have yielded. Joe#2 has had opportunity after opportunity, and fails to demonstrate that he would do anything more productive with more opportunities or money. Why in a sane country should Joe #1 pay more in taxes or give any of his money to Joe #2?

Liberal view: There is income inequality between Joe #1 and #2. That is unfair, Joe #1 is greedy, and is being extended an invisible knapsack of privileges by society. He should pay 'his fair share' in higher taxes.

It gets funnier....with complex cross- border connections at the 49th parallel, one of the benefits for yanks close to the border was access to free Canadian health care...that has changed over the last 15 yrs or so....so while the barbarians from the south have loaded up on US benefits of the lower states, Americans did fine by Canadian singlle payer health care

What nonsense. The concept of Income inequality is just an excuse to impose redistribution schemes by slapping on a label and demanding all believe in it.

How about we come up with a crime inequality index by neighborhood and demand that since high crime neighborhoods cost everyone else far more $$$$ due to destruction, theft, police and judicial efforts, costs for incarceration, and waste than their neighbors, that the property taxes be tripled in these neighborhoods and halved in "good" neighborhoods, so they can pay their fair share?

It is their country now. I take some solace in the fact that the strategy that enabled liberal political victory made liberal policy aims impossible. They dreamt of Sweden, but are going to get Brazil.

The relationship between percentage white and income equality holds in Brazil too. (Holds for whiteness and per capita income as well, of course.) http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Lista_de_estados_do_Brasil_por_%C3%ADndice_de_Gini

At least the italians have got a few hundred years of rapacious landlords, malaria and bone-headed catholicism to blame, what's America's excuse?

Italy only began diverging between north and south in terms of income around 1900. For most of the 19th century it was mostly a dead heat. (Link in Italian, but data in appendix easy enough to understand.)

'Blue state and red state' just don't cut it. Republican or Democratic, white states have more in common with one another while 'diverse' states have more in common with one another regardless of whether they're 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

We need more colors to signify who's really in power or which group is rising fast and will likely dominate.

White gentile dominated states would be white. Hispanic dominated states would be brown. Black dominated states would be black. Jewish dominated states would be green. Gay dominated states would be pink.

NY would certainly be green. New Mexico would be brown. Virigina would be black.

Liberal view: There is income inequality between Joe #1 and #2. That is unfair, Joe #1 is greedy, and is being extended an invisible knapsack of privileges by society. He should pay 'his fair share' in higher taxes.

Conservative view: The only reason anyone earns more than someone else is merit. The only reason. And the only reason some experience difficulties in life is because they're immoral, slackers, drifters, drug users and criminals. The only reason. (And of course not a cent should ever be spent to help them, only to punish them.)

That map could just as accurately depict the swath of destruction inflicted by a vast northward-moving swarm of locusts.

Liberals look at that map and don't see the Mexodus, they instead mistake that the map shows that the south is where all the ignorant white conservatives who voted for Romney hang on by their fingernails.

The same thing is always in my mind about affirmative action. And it's something so obvious, yet you rarely hear it, either from proponents (understandable) or opponents (hard to figure): they want to award these preferences to individuals from certain groups, without paying any attention to -- or apparently caring in the least about -- why a particular person didn't do well enough to qualify on merit. Some sort of nebulous disadvantage is assumed, one that must be compensated for with preferences. (Of course this same absurd reality surrounds the whole 'disparate impact' issue.) As applied today, the fundamental deductive nature of affirmative action has always bugged me: All Blacks are 'disadvantaged'; this is a Black; therefore he's 'disadvantaged' and deserves a preference.

Fact is, there are people with low incomes -- or low achievement in school -- who've spent more of their time smoking (in the high school bathroom maybe) than reading.

From my vantage point, every single wealthy country in which the government is run by Europeans or European descended people has opened up to immigration..

The one exception I know of is Iceland... If others can name an example or two I would be interested.

You could cite Denmark... at one point the population resoundingly voted against immigration and it pretty much ended... but recently the population voted in a pro immigration party in Denmark so the floodgates are being opened

Then of course, there is the small fact that rich people move south to retire. Makes too much sense? Oh, right, sorry.

Not very good with numbers, are you? There are far too few retirees who move across state lines for them to have much impact on inequality. From this article:

Relocation in retirement often brings cross-country or big north-south moves to mind, but very few seniors actually go very far. In 2010, just 1.6 percent of retirees between age 55 and 65 moved across state lines

"Conservative view: The only reason anyone earns more than someone else is merit. The only reason. And the only reason some experience difficulties in life is because they're immoral, slackers, drifters, drug users and criminals. The only reason. (And of course not a cent should ever be spent to help them, only to punish them."

Right, its like Solzhenitsyn said,"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

You know, those Somali refugees were pretty smart, they scouted around for the best mix of low housing costs,high welfare benefits and lack of vibrancy (which necessarily means low crime rate) and moved en masse to Maine.http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/somali-migration-to-maine-its-the-welfare-magnet-stupid

Here's the nonprofit to start, you do the scouting for the poor in your community for a better place for them to live (up by Canada no doubt), even help them with relocation costs and the welfare applications for their new home--- and make sure they don't miss their bus. Hell, city councils (the exporting cities, I mean) would throw grant money at a nonprofit like this. I can't think of any other policy that'd have a higher benefit to cost payoff (for both local community and their departing poor citizens).

Truth said...Then of course, there is the small fact that rich people move south to retire. Makes too much sense? Oh, right, sorry.

11/17/12 3:16 PM

Which also explains the progressive doofus meme of the month, "Blue states pay the taxes to subsidize red states"--i.e. to cover that Social Darwinist right-wing Bain Capital scheme known as Social Security/Medicare

"Conservative view: The only reason anyone earns more than someone else is merit. The only reason. And the only reason some experience difficulties in life is because they're immoral, slackers, drifters, drug users and criminals. The only reason. (And of course not a cent should ever be spent to help them, only to punish them."

Right, its like Solzhenitsyn said, "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?""

You guys really missed the boat on this. The issue isn't whether there are any people who have had bad things happen to them, or labeling people as good or bad. If you are going to support redistribution, how do even begin to tally up what Joe #1 or #2 has had to deal with unfairly in their life? That varies dramatically from person to person. Concepts like income inequality, assuming that Joe#1 has had life 10x easier because he makes 10x more than Joe #2 fails for the very reasons I address in my previous comment- people actually can try harder, can be smarter or more talented. If we had to give everyone exactly the same things to make their way with, it would even be more fair if we had a way to redistribute IQ points than to redistribute wealth because at least IQ points are more due to how one is raised and genetics; wealth can be obtained by working harder.

Issuing blanket responses like affirmative action based on race or gender are probably the worst possible way to deal with these things. Who is to say blacks are being given less opportunity in this day and age than whites or asians, given all the social and educational programs, scholarships etc aimed specifically at them? Asians come to the US and in 1 generation, even without any helping hand, and overcoming social and language barriers bigger than blacks face, do well in school and jobs. Jews did it in the 30s and 40s. If it were true that blacks were externally disadvantaged this way and it were the cause of the problems, they should also be able to overcome it this way, especially given all the supports.

If you feel that the issue is income inequality, then why focus social programs specifically at race and gender? Why should the poor son of a white janitor get shafted at admissions in favor of a black son of a lawyer who did more poorly on his SATs?

The original way, letting chips fall where they may, is far better. It encourages people to work harder and strive, when they have to take responsibility for themselves. Further, there were always charities around to help the poor, be it from churches, or the public getting together, people helping neighbors and family down on their luck so to speak, etc. An important concept here is CHOICE. People weren't forced to accept that they or their relatives are greedy people with invisible knapsacks of privilege just because they achieve more, as the elites would have us believe. And they weren't forced to give (by taxation, laws depriving freedom of association, and by taking away their opportunities) to someone who behaved in a way they were opposed to, such as someone like Joe #2.

"Obviously, we need some more illegal immigrations and more amnesties to fix that problem pronto."

I agree, and I came up with the perfect solution for obesity. More eating. Eating exercises the jaw muscles, and that will burn calories. Also, to digest/process the food, the body has to use energy(or burn calories) to make the stomach and intestines work, and that means bodily fat gets burned.

So, the more you eat, the more your body burns up calories to process what you've eaten.

And all this time, people thought the solution for lowering obesity was eating less and exercising more. How stupid and reactionary. If you eat less, your body won't burn as many calories to process the food you've eaten. And if you exercise more, your body will have less energy to consume and digest food. No wonder we have such an obesity program. People have been told to eat less and exercise more when people should rest and eat more.

"Repeat after me, Equal opportunity does not imply, nor is it the same as, equal outcomes."

Of course this is a correct statement.

The problem is that our society has become who, whom society. That is the guiding princinple of our policy just as it was the guiding policy in Soviet Union. It is not optimal, fair, or anything like that by any means.

But in theory it's a good argument - I personally think the answer has to be somewhere in between - kind of like it is in Scandivania. I think minimizing income inquality is a worthy goal as well as having a solid social net. No system will be perfect.

Unfortunately who, whom rules the day and all such talks will collapse into that.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.